Adding two new (and last civs) in the game?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
82

Ghurids were persianized, sure, but considering a part of the empire became the Delhi Sultanate I think they are more interesting than simply that. They would also use Central Asian architecture,not middle eastern architecture.

Also, I would just love to have a Muhammad of Ghor campaign personally.

Can you stop making claims with so much arrogsnce when its clear you have little to no knowledge about Africa? This is the same as arguing that if we had only Franks, Britons and Slavs we would have a proper European representation. Heck, we are still lacking a civ representing the South Saharian infantry warfare (and yes they are nothing alike the current African civs).

Im starting to question how much do you know about Asia as wellā€¦ Asia could have more than three times as many civs as Europe and still have better civ to choose.

Its almost like if they want more content for one of their favorite games or want content for all three games.

And? Do we have to delete every civ except Chinese, Mongols and Arabs just because they were better than everyone else? And Waris seem to have held as much power as the Aztecs for a longer time.

5 Likes
83

I think for these civilization proposals, even though these are mostly done for fun, we need to set some criteria for civilizations that can be plausibly added. Specifically, while North and South American tribes are indeed culturally unique, most people here seem to agree that they are not necessarily a good fit for this game. Likewise, some people are left scratching their head when the Burgundians, Portugal, and Sicilians in the game. The joke of adding ā€œobscureā€ European counties, while exaggerated, has a grain of truth to it. Thus, I would list the following criteria (most of these should be fulfilled between the year ~500-1600):

1. Did the proposed civilization, when considered jointly over all of its subdivisions, ever have political control over a network of cities or population centers?
In general, cities translates to a level of societal cohesion and administrative capability fundamental to the definition of an important civilization (be it an empire, kingdom, confederation, etc.). It also means that the civilization is a significant economic or population powerhouse, as the necessary resources of the cities must either be sustained by trade or rural communities. Note that the Italians and the Cumans would be some edge cases. The Italians were never even loosely politically unified, but are culturally similar. The Cumans never controlled major cities (as far as I am aware). But their constant incursions with the Rus, Poles, Byzantines, etc. suggests that they exhibit sustained ā€œcivilization-likeā€ military and political capability comparable to neighbouring states.

2. Did the proposed civilization exist as a culturally/societally/politically independent and prominent entity for a significant duration (~100 years)?
The proposed civilization should not be a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon, but a lasting entity in the Middle ages, with an independent political and cultural identity. (This is why the Burgundians and the Portuguese are considered weird choices. Many consider the Burgundians as culturally French, and politically a French subject before ~1350. The Portuguese is considered culturally Christian-Iberian, no more special than the ā€œSpanishā€ Castile or Aragon.) The 100-year-rule, while arbitrary, is a useful guideline. This rule ensures that at least one generation experienced their entire natural life as a member of such civilization. Note that by this definition, the Huns would not be in the game. (They were probably added for the cool-factor, back when the start of the game was still set as the fall of Rome.)

3. Did the proposed civilization have any decipherable record or archeological evidence of significant military contact with neighbouring powers of similar strength between the year 500-1500?
Ultimately, AoE2 is a war simulation game. If a civilization did not have any decipherable record of military actions, then it is likely not a good fit. Specifically, the minimum information needed are their military organization, strategy, and technology, as to create a proper tech tree.

2 Likes
84

Asia is far from being covered, thereā€™re still many Asian civs left. The only continent that is pretty much covered in this game right now is Europe.

With that being said however, I do agree with you that with more civs being added itā€™s going to be harder and harder for the devs to find unique civ bonuses and unique techs that are balanced. Perhaps an upper limit needs to be set for the number of civs that this game could have.

2 Likes
85

This would be a total fantacy unit like the ingame mamluke. Can you use a sling like that?

86

Itā€™s not total fantasy. According to records from the Song Dynasty (who fought the Tanguts numerous times), the Tanguts placed some type of light catapult on their camels and launched stones at Song infantry, my proposition of Camel Slinger is actually an understatement compared to what was written in Song records.

On the other hand, the scimitar-throwing mameluke is completely fantasy since we have no records supporting its existence.

87

Sling and a catapult is different, obviously you can use an animal as a platform to use mechanical weapons such as ballistaā€™s or cannons.

88

But really, a catapult on a camel is more unbelievable than a sling on a camel, despite what the records suggest. It would be more believable if it was put on an elephant, like the Ballista Elephant of the Khmers.

And Tibetic or Qiangic peoples like the Tanguts indeed used slings a lot in their daily lives, especially for herding. So a slinger mounted on a camel isnā€™t necessarily a fantasy. Judging by the records I feel this is probably the most plausible interpretation. Probably the Song people (who were mostly farmers hence not that familiar with the sling) mistook it for some sort of catapult.

89

I am only saying that any new civ added into the game needs to offer something to the game that would translate into MONEY :money_mouth_face: and EXCITEMENT :smiley: to further improve upon Age II, a game that is very old, and has seen an unprecedented growth from 13 civs up to 39 civs.

The current 39 civs already in game make Age II as a whole, pretty complete. If the devs were to stop RIGHT NOW and leave the game alone, I dare say that the game would still be played and enjoyed with just the 39 civs.

Just because the continent of Asia is bigger than, say Europe, does not necessarily make Asia "need more civ representation. Indeed, Asia is huge. But the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans cover nearly all of Eastern Asia, the Mongols and Tartars and Persians cover Central Asia, and the Saracens, Slavs (for Russians), Persians (again), Turks, and Byzantines cover the Middle East (West Asia), Indians cover South Asia (Subcontinent) and Burmese, Khmer, and Vietnamese for Southeast Asia.

Those are a lot of civs. I grant you that a few more civs can be squeezed into the game. But why add Khazars when Turks/Mongols/Tartars exist? Or Ghurids when Persians exist?

When Bohemians were added, I was surprised because I figured that Teutons already covered them. But the devs apparently decided that Bohemians were enough. Same goes with Burgundians. Franks already existed, butā€¦ after I took some time myself to study Burgundian and Bohemian history, I realized that there were strong justifications to give them each an independent civ.

In my studies of the various Turkic-Khazar peoples, the Tibetans peoples and the Siberian peoplesā€¦I have a hard time imagining them being given independent civs of their own. Maybe I have not looked enough into their history enough? I admit that I, like all other human beings, am not perfect. But I am loath to, on the face of it, endorse the idea of new Asian civs when

(1) there are too many Asian peoples to cram into a game already with 39 civs (and many of them Asian!)

(2) Where is the cut off? Do we just keep adding civ after civ after civ until we have a AGE OF UNITED NATIONS?

@FourCloud176402 makes an excellent point in saying that certain criteria must be met before we add a new civ.

I assume by ā€œWarisā€ you mean a North American native peoples?
Age has nothing to do with it. Civilization sophistication does. The Aztecs/Mayans/Incans were the premier Native American peoples on both continents. They ran empires which fits into the mold of this game being about empires.

How are you more knowledgeable than me when it comes to African lore and knowledge? Do you have a Masters degree in African history? Are you African, born and raised?

I am not pretending to be a huge authority in the matter of African history. I am simply a humble historian who studies MANY different histories on all continents. You, sir, need to stop with the insulting just because you are frustrated at someone who disagrees with you. Keep the discussion civil, please.

1 Like
90

To my original proposal for adding Georgians and Armenians, I selected them because I figured that they would be perfect non-European civ candidates.

Of course, there are those who would argue that Georgians ARE a ā€œEuropean peopleā€ but it is very difficult, considering when they literally exist on the border between Europe and Asia (Middle East). Kind of like how the Byzantines were a people that lived in both Europe AND Asia, making them in a manner, a Euro-Asian civ.

Throwing a sword is not outside the realm of real-life physics. It CAN work, but doing it for several swords in a row and being accurate in each throw like the Mameluke does: Probably would not be feasible in war. Also: the real life Egyptian-Arabic Mameluke was more of a horseman armed primarily with the lance or mace.

As for ā€œslingers on camelsā€, yesā€¦that is likely false, I am sorry to say @KarstHillFort77 . Slings are more accurate when performed on foot. Unless you can provide evidence to back up your claim?

However, mounted crossbowmen have existed (albeit in small numbers):

" German and Scandinavian medieval armies made extensive use of mounted crossbowmen. They would act not only as scouts and skirmishers but also protect the flanks of the knights and infantry, chasing away enemy light cavalry. When the battle was fully engaged, they would charge at the enemy flank, shoot a single devastating volley at point-blank range and then attack the enemy with swords, without reloading. In some instances, mounted crossbowmen could also reload and fire continuously on horseback if they used specific ā€œweakerā€ crossbows that could be reloaded easily, as mentioned in the 13th-century Norwegian educational text Konungs skuggsjĆ”."

91

A lot of Asian or African civs would be more recognizable than either Burgundians or Sicilians. Yeah, sure, Kanembu wont get added, but Somalis, Songhai and Zimbabwe could be.

What about Jurchen (Jin Dynasty), Khitans, Gokturks/Uyghurs, Tibetans, Tanguts, Chams, Thai, Javanese? These were all very diferent to any civ we have currently except for arguably the Khitans and they were all very powerful.

Nope. Im talking about the single other American empire in South America outside of the Incan empire. Muiscas also had a cool federation, Tarascans had an actual empire, Chimus were around for a while with their kingdom and Mapuche were pretty cool but Waris I would say were comparable with the Aztecs even if much earlier

Yes you havent

khazars I think are super cool but we barely have any info about them so not sure how you can work around that. Gokturks seems like a better civ choice since the closer thing we have to them are the Mongols and Tatars and neither of them represent them properly. The closest thing to a Siberian civ you could get is the Manchu or the already present Tatars.

Just call them primitive if thats what you think about them even if its wrong, but whatever. I wont be asking for Apache to get added and I dont see Waris getting added for a similar reason I dont see Khazars getting added but I just want you to know that you are wrong at saying that more American civs are pointless.

I have lost too much time reading stuff online.

But you should stop trying to say that they dont matter just because you have never heard of them. If you dont know about them, just say that you dont know about any African civ worth adding instead of saying ā€œThey were all the same and are already well represented by the three existing civsā€ and ā€œthere are no major African civs left to addā€.

I really think you dont look that deeply into stuff outside of your main field (aka Europe and the near east), yes.

That hasnt stopped them from adding redundant Euro civs.

Idk, ask the devs. If it was about me we would have 15 new civs by now but I dont think I have to get my idea of what I would like the game to be in the game. Rather see what the devs would do with any of the cool African and Asian civs.

3 Likes
92

If Burgundians and Bohemians, so can they. Honestly, aside some Swiss people, some Belgians, some French people and the people who played the Jeanne Dā€™Arc campaign knowing about them, Burgundians are quite obscure.

5 Likes
93

Kanembu while easily one of the most powerful and recorded kingdoms of Africa are really obscure compared to something like Zimbabwe or Benin (which are prob more known because of colonialism). Like, I doubt a lot of people heard about them before coming here

94

My evidence is basically the Song Dynasty record where it said the Tanguts used catapults on camels hurling stones at Song infantry. My interpretation of this is basically a mounted slinger, and chances were high that Song people mistook it for a catapult, cause they were mostly farmers hence werenā€™t that familiar with the sling. Of course it could be an actual catapult, but I really donā€™t think you could mount something the size of an onager or a ballista on the back of a camel. And using a sling on the back of a camel isnā€™t something outside of the realm of real-life physics either, and definitely sounds more plausible than throwing a sword on the back of a camel. Swords were precious commodities in the past, often the symbol of status, I donā€™t think they could be discarded that easily.

1 Like
95

If Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans cover nearly all of Eastern Asia, then by the same token Britons, Franks, and Teutons cover most of Europe too, why do we need civs like Sicilians or Burgundians?

3 Likes
96

The Mongols and Chinese civs ingame already represents the Jurchen, who were basically nomadic horsemen (like the Mongols) that were Sinicized enough to be very ā€œChineseā€ in character and structure.

Perhaps, but they need to bring a lot to the table. They need Wonders, UUs, a worked out tech tree that makes sense given their culture.

I have read the Tibetan Empire. However,

[quote=ā€œTungstenBoar, post:91, topic:184214ā€]
I have lost too much time reading stuff online.
[/quote] @TungstenBoar simple citing Wikipedia sources does not make you a ā€œscholarā€ over me. You likely know just as much about these empires and peoples as I do. You trying to push forward the idea that you are more knowledgeable that me or anyone else here in the Forums is only your ego talking. Simmer down.

You need to read TIMEā€™S African Kingdoms and stop looking for information just online. The Internet gets a lot of history wrong. You need to be reading historical treatises, books, and scholarly information and not just using Wikipedia as your only source document. I am saying this to help you become more well-versed and knowledgeable about history.

From what I can tell in all your comments supporting adding new civs, you do not offer any tangible evidence to make your proposed civs reasonably Age of Empires like. You are not mentioning architecture, what the Wonders will be what the tech tree and civ bonuses will be, with any historical fact to back it up. You are merely mentioning the peopleā€™s name and what region they belong to, and declaring them to be ā€œperfect new civs for AoE2ā€.

Burgundians and Sicilians have excellent histories and enough details about them to be made into their own independent civs. Same goes with Poles and Bohemians.

And you forget that the ā€œmedieval worldā€ was largely European, which is why most of the civs already in Age of Empires 2 are European. Naming some random African tribe or American confederation and saying that they should be ā€œnew civsā€ is not enough unless they has some uniqueness and detail about their cultural and military history to be added into this videogame.

15 new civs is unreasonable. With the current number of civs being 39, it is more likely that no more than 5 or 6 new civs will be added. The devs, if you were to ask them, would likely say that they are scrapping the barrel as it were in adding new civs into Age II. As far as DLCs are concerned, Age II is most likely only going to see new campaigns (like the new Co-Op campaigns) added plus some new scenario/game mode featured in and new maps.

1 Like
97

This is a question that I have brooded onā€¦

The explaination that I can come up with:

BURGUNDIANS

Because they became so powerful enough to nearly take down the Kingdom of France, and they were in command of a very powerful trade network stretching from Britain onto Italy, exerting heavy influence in Western and Southern European politics. In addition, the Dukes of Burgundy through marriage inherited the County of Flanders and made good use of the resources and people there, the Flemish being of course the medieval Dutch/Belgians. If you compare the Burgundians to say the Celts for instance, you can note how both civs, while being inidividual civs, represent more than one people: the Celts represent the medieval Irish and Scots. The Burgundians represents the medieval Burgundian (southern French) peoples plus the medieval equivalent of the modern Dutch and Belgians.

Furthermore, the Burgundians were once a distinct, separate Germanic tribe who along with the Frankish tribes, overran Roman Gaul in Late Antiquity. It was fate that the Burgundians, a smaller tribe would be become dominated by their larger Frankish neighbor in the north, consequently putting the Burgundians under French influence when Clovis I destroyed and annexed the Burgundian Kingdom. So even though technically the Burgundians in-game are ā€œvassals of the Frenchā€ i.e. are French, having their own civ alludes to how they once where a separate Germanic barbarian tribe.

SICILIANS
Obviously very ā€œItalianā€ by culture, but the Sicilian Normans did something quite unique from their Italian cousins in the north: they were not only Italian. The Sicilian Norman state presided over a realm that included Arabic, Tunisian, Berber, Italian, Frankish, Byzantine and Germanic elements in their geneology as well as culture.

This civ is meant to represent the Normans who did not invade England under William the Conqueror (those Normans would be represented by the Britons in-game) but rather traveled south, first as mercenaries and later as conquerors and Crusaders. As mercenaries, they entered the service of Byzantine and Italian elite and experienced troops, but once they had enough numbers they took advantage of the chaos happening in southern Italy and Sicily at the time and created their own realm. They of course took on Italian wives and gradually became ā€œItalizedā€ but they remained very distinct enough to be considered foreign by the neighboring states in the Central Mediterranean. The Sicilian Normans were defined by their heavy cavalry and heavy infantry (which the Italians in-game lack strong cavalry) and thier warlike nature. Also: the First Crusade was largely made possible by not German, Frankish, British, or even Italian leadership: it was Norman leadership. If you look at the records of the Crusades, you see the term ā€œNormanā€ come up quite frequently, suggesting that to all other Europeans, they were their own breed of people. This I think was enough to convince the developers to make them their own civ in Age II.

98

Im not going to argue that Im. I have very basic knowledge and I share that very basic knowledge that imho makes this civ worth adding.

No, however knowing a bit is better than knowing nothing.

Im not going to argue with anyone that actually knows about the subject that I know more, but you dont know about the subject.

Absolutely not. I have read from actual books about European warfare (and yeah I wish I had about African and Asian warfare but those are a bit harder to find although I have been looking a bit at some online books) and not wikipedia and these two civs are way worse than the Jin dynasty. Bohemians were outside of a short period just the same as everyone else in the HRE, Poles are fine as long as you dont have a heavy cavalry civ Lith already in the game and Sicilians and Burgundians have nothing to add to the table that Franks cant do already. Heck, Franks and Sicilians are both based in the Normans.

Sicilians and Franks have:

  • Tanky knights, which get even better with the imperial UT
  • A heavy infatry unit as the UU with a castle age UT upgrading them
  • Bonuses representing the Norman keep
  • A farming bonus

And while Burgundians are a bit more unique gameplaywise they were just a French and Dutch mix that barely lasted more than a hundred years and didnt held that much territory. They are still very similar to Franks in game as well. And yeah I know Teutons also have those similarities but unlike Normans, a German civ had to be added.

The game was always about the world at large and not just Europe

What do you know about them then?

Thats one of the reasons why I dont want my ideal version of the game to be the real one. Rather just hope the devs allow us to mod the game better.

They werent alike the Mongols in warfare. They were more diferent from either Chinese or Mongols than Burgundians and Normans when compared to Franks or even Bohemians when compared to Teutons.

They were basically a heavy cav civ.

4 Likes
99

@KarstHillFort77 Even after typing all that out, I feel like I have not gone through ALL the reasons why Siclians and Burgundians make sense as new civsā€¦but those were the reasons that I can think of from the back of my hand, right now.

@TungstenBoar :point_up: Read the two large paragraphs I have written to Karst. I can say to you, since you are dead set on including more African, American, and Asian civs in the game, that the medieval history of the Burgundians and Sicilians is well documented, and from that, it becomes quite easy to turn them into civs. So much is sadly NOT known about many civilizations throughout Africa, Asia, and the Americas to make them useful as new civs.

Even if the devs cannot add any new viable civs into the game, that does not mean that we as historians can continue to enjoy learning about those cultures and peoples! Age of Empires 2 is not a game designed to be an encyclopedia of all medieval civs: it is a strategy game, that is already quite old. Age IV already has taken a lot of attention away from Age II.

2 Likes
100

The history of a lot African civs isnt well documented but a lot of civs have more documented info than Malians for example

Also we already have Incas on the game

Also, you do have all the requirements for an AoE2 civs for the vast majority of them outside America. You know their warfare, you have campaign potential and you have enough for a civ history page. Heck, from what I have read (irl) theres as much info about India, the middle east and China as theres about Europe

1 Like
101

You do not know that for certain, because you have never met me in person. Now THAT is arrogance.

Bohemia was very important in affecting European history and politics because controlling Bohemia largely decided the outcome of elections on who was to be Holy Roman Emperor. Additionally, the Holy Roman Emperors of the Late Medieval Ages styled themselves as ā€œKings of Bohemiaā€, which further signifies the importance of the region (otherwise, why bother to call themselves King of a country that was irrevelent?). True, Bohemia was not always an independent nation in the Middle Ages, but the Hussite Revolution was a defining moment in European history, especially Christian history as a precursor of the Reformation. Plus, the Bohemians re-invented the use of the Warwagon as a weapon of war in European battlefields, as well as help pioneer the military use of gunpowder. All those reasons are EXCELLENT arguments who Bohemia deserves their own civ in Age of Empires II.

Not sure what you mean here. ā€œfine as long as you donā€™t have a heavy cavalry civā€ The Poles that we got are a heavy cavalry civ. The UU the Obuch is not heavy cavalry, true, but the Poles have a bonus to their Knight line as well as beefed up Hussars.

First: the Sicilians are not a Paladin civ, they only get upgraded Cavaliers. Second: the Sicilians have powerful heavy infantry (Sergeants) and a strong navy, whereas the Franks get the ranged infantry Throwing Axeman and a poor navy. The Siclians also have a good archer line, with Bracer + access to Arbalester which Franks lack, and the Franks do not share Siege Onagers with the Sicilians.

Only are they ā€œsimilarā€ in that both have Farm bonuses.

Burgundians have the Flemish Pikemen as well as better gunpowder than the Franks do. And even though Franks and Burgundians both share eco bonuses, the Burgundians have faster eco bonuses that make their early game better than Franks, while Franks are a better late-game civ. Comparing their Paladins the difference is obvious: Burgundians get Paladins out sooner for good early game & mid game potential, but the Franks dominate the late-game with beefier Paladins.

Only the Sicilians are based on Normans. The Franks already existed before the Normans did. The Normans were originally Vikings who settled northwest of Paris after signing a treaty with the King of France. And after they settled, those Norsemen gradually converted to Frankish culture and language and became the Normans, but they were never ā€œFrenchā€ in the actual sense.

One thing I forgot to mention is that the Burgundians exerted influence upon Spain during the Middle Ages: the Burgundian Ducal family married into the Spanish Royalty, and as a result, the Spanish flag changed into the Burgundian one.
Burgundy Cross Flag 1506-1785 (Spain) (crwflags.com)

image
image1280Ɨ853 19.2 KB

So I very much doubt that the Burgundians were a ā€œonly 100 years oldā€ civ, when they continued to exist well into the late Middle Ages as a part of the Spanish-Hapsburg Empire.

When the Spanish King Charles I was elected Holy Roman Emperor, he owned both the old Dukedom of Burgundyā€™s lands in Burgundy proper as well as in the Lowlands of the Neatherlands, as proper procedure of the right of inheritance in Europe at the time. And Charles was descended from Burgundian Dukes.

How would this translate to the Jurchens necessitating their own civ? The Chinese civ in-game has access to descent Heavy Cavalry and Cavalry Archers. The Chinese can upgrade to Cavaliers and Heavy Cavalry Archer faster than most civs due to the tech-cost reduction bonus they get, and the Chinese have access to ALL armor upgrades, making their Cavaliers and Heavy Cavalry Archers better than average. This makes Chinese civ enough to be represent the Jurchens. In the Genghis Khan Mission 3: Into China, the Jin player even trains Knights/Cavaliers, unlike the other Chinese players who represent ā€œChina properā€. Suggesting that the devs at the time knew that the Jurchens were already in Age of Empires 2 in the form of the Chinese civ.

1 Like